Detecting Insufficient Effort Responding with an Infrequency Scale: Evaluating Validity and Participant Reactions

By Jason L. Huang, N. Bowling, Mengqiao Liu, Yuhui Li. Journal of business and psychology, 2014

294 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Communication, Information Systems and Management, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d27080bf8f06b9217e72cbbf5aada4204413d20a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Communication

1. Melissa G. Keith
2. P. D. Harms
3. Louis Tay
4. Herman Aguinis

In Information Systems and Management

1. P. D. Harms
2. Herman Aguinis
3. Ante Glavas
4. M. Hiebl
5. Marc Orlitzky

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

1. Ravi S. Ramani
2. Isabel Villamor
3. Melissa G. Keith
4. P. D. Harms
5. Louis Tay
6. Herman Aguinis
7. Ante Glavas
8. M. Hiebl

Citations in the corpus

• Systems Perspective of Amazon Mechanical Turk for Organizational Research: Review and Recommendations (2017, methodology): “As many commentators point out, careless or inattentive responding results in error variance (or noise; Goodman et al., 2012; Fleischer et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2015b; McGonagle, 2015; Ran et al., 2015; Rouse, 2015).”
• MTurk Research: Review and Recommendations (2020, background): “…items that direct MTurkers to complete or abstain from a particular action, bogus items that ask MTurkers to answer obvious or ridiculous questions, self-reports of effort, and questions on which all or almost all respondents should provide the same response (Huang, Bowling, Liu, & Li, 2015).”